This blog is about spiritual awakening, maps and stages, the blinding effects of our strong momentum/conditioning (karmic propensities), view, realization, experience, etc. If you're new here, I recommend going through the 'Must Reads' articles (see sidebar). For discussions you are welcome to join the Awakening to Reality Facebook group

[10:15 AM, 6/6/2020] Soh Wei Yu: In 17 minutes onwards he describes emptiness of awareness and no container
[11:23 AM, 6/6/2020] John Tan: Yes. But he still need to go through the 90 days cycle. Now clarity vibrancy just released.
[11:25 AM, 6/6/2020] John Tan: Ppl that do not go through the phases of insights between I M will not know the difference but it is important to go through I M to realize the intensity.
[11:27 AM, 6/6/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Ic.. yeah he went through I AM
[11:27 AM, 6/6/2020] Soh Wei Yu: He also went through mahasi sayadaw stages like daniel ingram
[11:27 AM, 6/6/2020] John Tan: Ic
[11:27 AM, 6/6/2020] John Tan: Daniel 4th path
[11:28 AM, 6/6/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Yup.. the 16 nanas and then fruition cessation then the four paths
[11:28 AM, 6/6/2020] Soh Wei Yu: I think his recent breakthrough is similar to daniel 4th
[11:28 AM, 6/6/2020] John Tan: Yes
[11:28 AM, 6/6/2020] John Tan: However can still fall into AF or further into emptiness
[11:29 AM, 6/6/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Ic..
[11:30 AM, 6/6/2020] John Tan: A breakthrough of seeing through self is not graduation, same intellectual obscurations can manifest as many blind spots.

[12:15 PM, 6/7/2020] John Tan: If one does not penetrate deeply into DO
and Emptiness, then he must resort back into seeing the deep dark abyss
of silence.[12:17 PM, 6/7/2020] John Tan: The opposite side of vivid presence must b integrated.[12:21 PM, 6/7/2020] Soh Wei Yu: ic..[12:21 PM, 6/7/2020] Soh Wei Yu: is it like the cessation he mentioned?[12:22 PM, 6/7/2020] Soh Wei Yu: he said consciousness blinks out for him everyday[12:22 PM, 6/7/2020] Soh Wei Yu: in a meditative state[12:22 PM, 6/7/2020] John Tan: He overlook cessation, many do when presence vivid aliveness is revealed.[12:22 PM, 6/7/2020] Soh Wei Yu: i think he still access cessation everyday due to mahasi practice[12:23 PM, 6/7/2020] Soh Wei Yu: also 8 jhanas[12:23
PM, 6/7/2020] John Tan: That is not important...everyone knows
sensations blink in and out of existence...it is how one penetrates and
integrate with mature insights.[12:23 PM, 6/7/2020] Soh Wei Yu: oic..[12:25
PM, 6/7/2020] John Tan: Look at his eyes and expressions like u wanted
to look at the surrounding as if there is more to see...more to
feel...lol[12:27 PM, 6/7/2020] Soh Wei Yu: thats how i looked like last year lol (comments: after breakthrough i described in The Magical Fairytale-like Wonderland and Paradise of this Verdant Earth Free from Affective Emotions, Reactions and Sufferings)[12:27 PM, 6/7/2020] Soh Wei Yu: now more normal[12:28
PM, 6/7/2020] John Tan: When one has same insight of presence from
anatta directed into silence, then the "wanting" to be more alive, more
vivid, more radiance will be balanced...[12:28 PM, 6/7/2020] John Tan: Buddhism imo has its unique way of dealing with this balance...[12:29 PM, 6/7/2020] John Tan: Taoism focuses deep into this abyss of darkness ... But a balance is needed...[12:30
PM, 6/7/2020] John Tan: Like when u hear sound, it is always
silence/sound...the flow of music is also the continuous flow of
silence...[12:30 PM, 6/7/2020] John Tan: Can u hear that?[12:39 PM, 6/7/2020] John Tan: In total exertion, an instantaneous arising of sound exhaust everything. Just that "tingsss"....

For a Taoist master, the deep dark abyss gives rise to that sound...same immensity and power...

P.s. I have not personally read all these articles. Many of them are on my to-read list.

One comment about the Japanese Zen article:

[10:29 AM, 6/4/2020] John Tan: Issue about a mirror is always it gives people a sense of something is beyond. Instead of bringing ppl into the relative, conventional, day to day. Seeing the nature of the relative and conventional is the key and is where profound insights and wisdom lie.[10:29 AM, 6/4/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..[10:31 AM, 6/4/2020] Soh Wei Yu: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/japanese-zen/[10:31 AM, 6/4/2020] John Tan: This is clear in Mahayana buddhism esp.

1) Someone lurking in the AtR group just realised anatta recently after being stuck in I AM for many years, then went into nondual and anatta. I'll let him post about it on his own, or not, as he wishes.

What does the Buddha say? "Visual awareness arises dependent On eye & form"

So, while closely contemplating seeing, consider right now: "The conditions for visual awareness are currently complete, thus I have this visual awareness About this visual awareness, depending on eyes, Were these eyes now to disappear—when they do eventually disappear—then, this visual awareness, dependent on eyes, would stop And, also for this visual awareness—dependent on *form*— Suddenly, would there be no form at all, then too, this visual awareness—dependent on form—would stop"

"So this visual awareness is dependent, And not independent Such is its arising, such is its ceasing"

Comments

📷Active NowStian Gudmundsen Høiland📷 So we see that it has a condition, on account of which presence it arises and absence it ceases.

From having a condition, we see it is impermanent: If in response to the presence of the condition it arises, then in response to the absence of the condition it ceases. Having arisen dependent on a cause, it is thus impermanent, since—having arisen *in dependence* on the presence of the cause—the absence of the cause entails its cessation.

Consider closely this part:

> If in response to the presence of the condition it arises...

Why is it that we get from that the consequence of:

> ... then in response to the absence of the condition it ceases.

It is because the arising is bound to the state of presence (of the condition). When the condition is no longer present, then—since it arose *dependent* on (the presence of) that condition—it will thus cease.

So, "arising with a cause" necessitates "cessation when the cause disappears".

What becomes understood here is called impermanence, and when that understanding goes even further what is understood is called "conditionedness".2

... it is something completely determined by conditions—there is no "free" factor beside conditions that could otherwise overrule its conditions and make it arise or cease. In fact, such a thing would just be... a condition.

Grasping/understanding conditionedness is very close to what is called dispassion. The coming and going of things—and quite so by themselves—keeps the mind from fascinating about things as-if they were permanent and could be controlled by a single entity (this "as-if" attitude is quite unconscious and hidden from us), and this leads to a hands-off approach, i.e. doesn’t grasp and cling.

Emptiness, here, very specifically means what one intuits as the lack of "being worthy of" or "deserving" grasping and clinging. By understanding conditionedness one intuits the reason of not deserving grasping and not being worthy of clinging. This intuited "quality" lies very close to what is called dukkha and anatta. What one thus intuits or understands is called "(the state of) being void", but which we get translated as "emptiness". The result of understanding how (thus conditioned) things (i.e. things that are conditioned as such, i.e. arises dependent on condition, i.e. is conditionally arisen, i.e. conditioned arising) are void is called many things, for example "dispassion". This dispassion is tantamount to non-involvement (atammayata?) with conditioned things, a slight turning away of the mind from conditioned things, which leads to what is called nibbāna and asaṅkhata.

Thus, by completely understanding dependent arising and conditionedness, the mind becomes dispassionate and does not grasp nor cling to anything conditioned. Consciousness naturally becoming calm and resting through dispassion, ceases from further movements of mind and mental activity.By completely understanding the meaning of "conditioned", one finally comes to direct experience of what is called "unconditioned" (& "nirvana").3

When you contemplate dependent arising & ceasing of seeing (or "eye-contact"), you are unwittingly replacing the assumption of an agent of seeing.

Somewhere in your psyche there is a belief-ing that seeing is an act performed by an agent.

When you consider that this visual awareness right here depends on eye & form and that with this eye & form there is this visual awareness and that without this eye there would be no visual awareness and that without this form there would be no visual awareness, then "I am" with regards to seeing stops for as long as you remain in that understanding; there is then no "I am seeing", there is only seeing, no "I am" doing the seeing.

> ... When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two.

> When a noble disciple has clearly seen with right wisdom this dependent origination and these dependently originated phenomena as they are, it’s impossible for them to turn back to the past, thinking: ‘Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? After being what, what did I become in the past?’ Or to turn forward to the future, thinking: ‘Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist in the future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future? After being what, what will I become in the future?’ Or to be undecided about the present, thinking: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? This sentient being—where did it come from? And where will it go?’4

He starts to mention at 17:00, then again around 19:00 and also 25:00
He seems to reference Mahā total exertion at the end" - Kyle Dixon

"Interesting...Elias Capriles talk about total exertion and non-action. He also give an example of some one drawing a circle...which I think is very good. My son intro-ed an artist that is like that into total non-action...every point he draws is simply perfect...when they later map and calculate the ratio and distance... Kim Jung Gi" - John Tan

[8:07 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: He is just emphasizing anatta, manifestation as clarity and total exertion.

[8:13 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: If there is no I as a background, u r left with manifestation.[8:15 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: If u want to bring out the nature of phenomena, 现象界[8:16 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: U must see through first the background and point directly to this foreground as one's radiance clarity.[8:17 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: So first the direct pointing is important, second eliminate the mistaken view that clarity is always hiding behind.[8:18 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: In between, one must keep refining the view of emptiness and DO.[8:18 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: His elaboration and emphasis of 重重因缘 is good[8:19 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: And 刹那[8:19 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: Both r important

[8:28 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: In the first video he talked about the mirror and reflection is also very good.[8:29 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: But whether ppl can understand is a different matter.[8:29 PM, 5/21/2020] Soh Wei Yu: oic.. yeah i remember he paused and ask do you understand? haha[8:29 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: Yeah[8:30 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: That reflection is the very mirror...not the mirrors that reflects, but the reflection as that mirror. I think that is very good.[8:31 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: The way he described has a trigger point.[8:31 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: I mean the way he puts it

Anurag Jain"I
Am", if you mean it to be Self can never be an object of any perception
so it's strange how you see it as 'one of the ten thousand things'.
Self I that which witnesses the ten thousand things' including your
thought which says I Am is one of the ten thousand things.

Soh Wei YuNov18Anatta and Pure PresenceSomeone told me about having been through insights of no self and then progressing to a realisation of the ground of being.

I replied:

Hi ____

Thanks for the sharing.

This
is the I AM realization. Had that realisation after contemplating
Before birth, who am I? For two years. It’s an important realization.
Many people had insights into certain aspects of no self, impersonality,
and “dry non dual experience” without doubtless realization of
Presence. Therefore I AM realisation is a progression for them.

Similarly
in Zen, asking who am I is to directly experience presence. How about
asking a koan of what is the cup? What is the chirping bird, the thunder
clap? What is its purpose?

When I talked about
anatta, it is a direct insight of Presence and recognizing what we
called background presence, is in the forms and colours, sounds and
sensations, clean and pure. Authentication is be authenticated by all
things. Also there is no presence other than that. What we call
background is really just an image of foreground Presence, even when
Presence is assuming its subtle formless all pervasiveness.

However
due to ignorance, we have a very inherent and dual view, if we do see
through the nature of presence, the mind continues to be influenced by
dualistic and inherent tendencies. Many teach to overcome it through
mere non conceptuality but this is highly misleading.

Thusness also wrote:

The
anatta I realized is quite unique. It is not just a realization of
no-self. But it must first have an intuitive insight of Presence.
Otherwise will have to reverse the phases of insightsLabels: Anatta, Luminosity |

Soh Wei YuIn the whole of china and taiwan, only two teachers I can find have realised what i realised -

Zen Master Hui Lu and Zen Master Hong Wen Liang.

You can see how rare it is.

(Update by Soh: please do not mistaken this to be condescending to Advaita and other Buddhist teachers who do not speak from the insight of anatta. I do not intend to promote one-upmanship based on certain insights. I have great respect, and in fact gratitude, for Advaita and other Awareness teachings as they have helped me much in the past, and I continue to recommend these teachings to others depending on conditions. I see the value and preciousness of these teachings, even if certain aspects of them may not agree with my current view. Furthermore, I maintain as Ratnashree said, "I must reiterate that this difference in both the system is very
important to fully understand both the systems properly and is not
meant to demean either system." - https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Acharya%20Mahayogi%20Shridhar%20Rana%20Rinpoche

My reason for posting this is:

1) Anurag posted something by a Buddhist master earlier that day, which sounded like Advaita, so I wanted to confirm with him that indeed, many Buddhist teachers fall into the category of Advaita view, it is not surprising to me. 2) To create discernment on the diversity of views even among a specific religion or tradition 3) I want others to take the teachings of Zen Master Hui Lu and Zen Master Hong Wen Liang seriously if they want to study anatta, total exertion and emptiness teachings from a realised master, and discern the essence of Buddha's intent, and happen to be Chinese.)

"What
you are suggesting is already found in Samkhya system. I.e. the twenty
four tattvas are not the self aka purusha. Since this system was well
known to the Buddha, if that's all his insight was, then his insight is
pretty trivial. But Buddha's teachings were novel. Why where they novel?
They were novel in the fifth century BCE because of his teaching of
dependent origination and emptiness. The refutation of an ultimate self
is just collateral damage." - Lopon Malcolm

“The
Pristine awareness is often mistaken as the 'Self'. It is especially
difficult for one that has intuitively experience the 'Self' to accept
'No-Self'. As I have told you many times that there will come a time
when you will intuitively perceive the 'I' -- the pure sense of
Existence but you must be strong enough to go beyond this experience
until the true meaning of Emptiness becomes clear and thorough. The
Pristine Awareness is the so-called True-Self' but why we do not call it
a 'Self' and why Buddhism has placed so much emphasis on the Emptiness
nature? This then is the true essence of Buddhism. It is needless to
stress anything about 'Self' in Buddhism; there are enough of 'Logies'
of the 'I" in Indian Philosophies. If one wants to know about the
experience of 'I AM', go for the Vedas and Bhagavad Gita. We will not
know what Buddha truly taught 2500 years ago if we buried ourselves in
words. Have no doubt that The Dharma Seal is authentic and not to be
confused.

When you have experienced the 'Self' and
know that its nature is empty, you will know why to include this idea of
a 'Self' into Buddha-Nature is truly unnecessary and meaningless. True
Buddhism is not about eliminating the 'small Self' but cleansing this so
called 'True Self' (Atman) with the wisdom of Emptiness.” - John Tan,
2005

Robert DominikThere
are languages which don't have distinction between plural and singular
with regards to many phenomena. Clinging to one is just yet another form
of clinging to a concept - in this case a number.

Robert DominikAlso
Buddha calls teaching that all pertains to one self or all is one self
"completely" "a fool's teaching" in the Pali Canon. So even though
Buddhadharma arose in a Vedic world - it doesn't buy into central
ontological premise of the Vedas.

Anurag JainRobert, it is talking of emptiness which is very much part of the "fools teaching" Buddha was referring to :-) Please read Katha Upanishad. The Self is beyond emptiness, beyond being and non-being.

Flawed Mode of Enquiryawakeningtoreality.blogspot.comFlawed Mode of EnquiryFlawed Mode of Enquiry

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 4h

Anurag JainActive NowAnurag Jain John Tan did you not go through the thread? Convey that Self cannot be experienced.

Like · Reply · 2h

Anurag JainActive NowAnurag Jain Robert, I am not going to teach concepts. I am going to teach elimination of all falsity (which includes all concepts)

Like · Reply · 2h

John TanJohn Tan Anurag Jain, u cannot experience Self.

Like · Reply · 2h

Anurag JainActive NowAnurag Jain John Tan , absolutely. Soh shared some dialogue in which he talks about you talking of experience of Self. Please scroll up.

Like · Reply · 2h

John TanJohn Tan Anurag Jain, knowing is relative. To know is to measure and compare. Knowingness is beyond knowing. Knowingness is realized not by the relativity of a conditioned mind. U need to leap out of the conditioned.

I-I or I M is a direct and gapless authentication.2

Like · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive NowAnurag Jain John Tan absolutely agreed.

Like · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive NowRobert Dominik Im speaking relatively.

If you prefer I will use words "there is no assumption of who in the absolute truth"

Like · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive NowRobert Dominik Obviously the language is based on words like who or selves.

Like · Reply · 1h

John TanJohn Tan Anurag Jain an experience is an after thought.1

Like · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive NowRobert Dominik So with your attachement to "who" you are showing you do not go beyond linguistically enforced concepts.

Like · Reply · 1h · Edited

Anurag JainActive NowAnurag Jain Robert, I can always ask the same question. "Who says that there is no assumption of who in the absolute truth"?

Like · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive NowAnurag Jain John Tan absolutely.

Like · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive NowRobert Dominik Anurag Jain but thats just hammering your assumption based question like a broken record.

Anurag JainActive NowAnurag Jain Robert, ok. So who knows that he has realized anatta?

............................... [lengthy conversation cut]

Soh Wei YuSoh Wei Yu After anatta, even the I-I is not seen as a “who”. It is not the subject behind all objects. It is realised that there never was a subject. I-I is just I-I, but not reified into a background. It is just another foreground manifestation, another “occurrence”. Likewise in hearing, only sound, no subject or object, knower or known. Seeing is only colors without seer-seeing-seen. And so on. Direct authentication in all and everything

Like · Reply · 1h · Edited

Anurag JainActive NowAnurag Jain Robert, do you like John Tan?

Like · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive NowRobert Dominik Doing this mantra over and over until they are programmed with the concepts of "who" and "knowing"?

Anurag JainActive NowAnurag Jain Robert,ha, ha that is not talking of Self as experience dear !

Like · Reply · 1h

Soh Wei YuSoh Wei Yu Anurag Jain

In anatta, one realises that the experiencer-experiencing-experience paradigm to be fundamentally flawed. This applies to everything, not only I-I. Then in hearing, hearing is only sound without hearer, and so on, is the same luminous taste as I-I

Like · Reply · 1h · Edited

Anurag JainActive NowAnurag Jain Soh Wei Yu, did you go through this thread?

Like · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive NowRobert Dominik You werent clear on that. In any case what a "self" or "Self" is?

Like · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive NowAnurag Jain Robert, in Advaita they are different from an unenlightened view and same from an enlightened view.

Like · Reply · 1h

Soh Wei YuSoh Wei Yu Anurag Jain

Yes, why?

Like · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive NowAnurag Jain But we will have to cover a lot of ground to understand this

Like · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive NowAnurag Jain Soh Wei Yu because, I do not deviate an inch from what he said.

Like · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive NowAnurag Jain And he did not speak of anatta. He was speaking of Self in that thread.

Like · Reply · 1h

Soh Wei YuSoh Wei Yu You mean you agree with John?

Like · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive NowAnurag Jain Soh Wei Yu that means you did not go through the thread 🙂

Like · Reply · 1h

Soh Wei YuSoh Wei Yu I agree with John too. But you fail to see that John agrees with Robert too, on anatta.

Like · Reply · 1h

Soh Wei YuSoh Wei Yu You fail to understand anatta just like when you said anatta is an experience. It is not.

Like · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive NowAnurag Jain Soh Wei Yu talk about what John Tan wrote in this thread. Exactly the same words.

Soh Wei YuSoh Wei Yu Anyway its not surprising at all. John Tan and I have gone through self realization.

The I-I is not itself the issue, the issue we and Robert are debating and John Tan is pointing out is that you are caging the I-I into a dualistic paradigm of knower-known and asking a question of who/etc based on dualistic assumptions.

All these do not apply at all after anatta is realised.

Like · Reply · 1h · Edited

......

Soh Wei YuSoh Wei Yu John tan wrote:

Anurag Jain, knowing is relative. To know is to measure and compare. Knowingness is beyond knowing. Knowingness is realized not by the relativity of a conditioned mind. U need to leap out of the conditioned.

I-I or I M is a direct and gapless authentication.

...

Anurag Jain to realize the I-I, a koan will b more appropriate to leap one out of the relative. As for Soh Wei Yu, yes. He knows what he is talking about...lol

...

Anurag, the Self cannot b the perceiver nor can the Self b the percieved. Why then do u still ask "Who"?

Though u may have the eureka authentication, If post authentication one is still within the who, what, where, when and why mode of enquiry, he will forever be playing hide and seek.

Anatta as Robert said, relook the entire matter in another way so happy exploring.

Soh Wei YuSoh Wei Yu Anurag Jain You are talking about I-I. I am not denying, I am saying that this taste is found as all manifestation after anatta. Plus caging it in who/what/where/when/why enquiry and dualistic paradigm simply puts a limit to the boundless and limitless unfolding of this taste.

Like · Reply · 21m · Edited

Soh Wei YuSoh Wei Yu Right now this same I-I taste is always unfolding in its intensity, naturally, effortlessly throughout day and night not just as a formless Presence but also as the very vivid foreground manifestation that we normally call sky, trees, and birds chirping. Even before these labels. Everything is brilliant radiating presence, knowingness, aliveness, intelligence. If we cage this taste into a ghostly entity hiding behind everything else, this is merely imposing artificial boundaries and limitations. Falling into the framework of experiencer-experiencing-experience instead of the direct authentication of this

First
is what exactly is the ‘background’? Actually it doesn’t exist. It is
only an image of a ‘non-dual’ experience that is already gone. The
dualistic mind fabricates a ‘background’ due to the poverty of its
dualistic and inherent thinking mechanism. It ‘cannot’ understand or
function without something to hold on to. That experience of the ‘I’ is a
complete, non-dual foreground experience.

When the
background subject is understood as an illusion, all transience
phenomena reveal themselves as Presence. It is like naturally
'vipassanic' throughout. From the hissing sound of PC, to the vibration
of the moving MRT train, to the sensation when the feet touches the
ground, all these experiences are crystal clear, no less “I AM” than “I
AM”. The Presence is still fully present, nothing is denied. -:) So the
“I AM” is just like any other experiences when the subject-object split
is gone. No different from an arising sound. It only becomes a static
background as an afterthought when our dualistic and inherent tendencies
are in action.

The first 'I-ness' stage of
experiencing awareness face to face is like a point on a sphere which
you called it the center. You marked it.

Then later
you realized that when you marked other points on the surface of a
sphere, they have the same characteristics. This is the initial
experience of non-dual. Once the insight of No-Self is stabilized, you
just freely point to any point on the surface of the sphere -- all
points are a center, hence there is no 'the' center. 'The' center does
not exist: all points are a center.

After then
practice move from 'concentrative' to 'effortlessness'. That said, after
this initial non-dual insight, 'background' will still surface
occasionally for another few years due to latent tendencies...

86. RE: Is there an absolute reality? [Skarda 4 of 4]To
be more exact, the so called 'background' consciousness is that
pristine happening. There is no a 'background' and a 'pristine
happening'. During the initial phase of non-dual, there is still
habitual attempt to 'fix' this imaginary split that does not exist. It
matures when we realized that anatta is a seal, not a stage; in hearing,
always only sounds; in seeing always only colors, shapes and forms; in
thinking, always only thoughts. Always and already so. -:)

Many
non-dualists after the intuitive insight of the Absolute hold tightly
to the Absolute. This is like attaching to a point on the surface of a
sphere and calling it 'the one and only center'. Even for those
Advaitins that have clear experiential insight of no-self (no
object-subject split), an experience similar to that of anatta (First
emptying of subject) are not spared from these tendencies. They continue
to sink back to a Source.

It is natural to
reference back to the Source when we have not sufficiently dissolved the
latent disposition but it must be correctly understood for what it is.
Is this necessary and how could we rest in the Source when we cannot
even locate its whereabout? Where is that resting place? Why sink back?
Isn't that another illusion of the mind? The 'Background' is just a
thought moment to recall or an attempt to reconfirm the Source. How is
this necessary? Can we even be a thought moment apart? The tendency to
grasp, to solidify experience into a 'center' is a habitual tendency of
the mind at work. It is just a karmic tendency. Realize It! This is what
I meant to Adam the difference between One-Mind and No-Mind.” - John
Tan, 2009, excerpt from Emptiness as Viewless View and Embracing the
Transience

Robert Dominik"The
same taste is in all states and manifestation and is none other than
manifestation. But in terms of view your view is different because I do
not posit a changeless background" <- it matches what Malcolm Smith
says that the experience, the taste of
nonconceptual Samadhi can be the same and equally strong in both Hindu
and Buddhadarma traditions but the view is different and is the crucial,
key factor of liberative power. So the usual problem is that people -
and in some way they're right - that the experience is the same in all
traditions. But that misses the point as Buddhadharma stresses the right
view. That's why there is distinction between Shamatha and Vipassana.

Robert DominikSo
three experiences of "non-thought", "clarity" and "bliss" are
accessible to everyone on all the paths. However the unique import of
Buddhadharma is that contextualising experience with wrong view leads to
involuntary rebirth in the three realms of formless, form and desire
while experiences in the absence of wrong views are a Path to final
release.

Comments by Soh: Also see related article - I AM Experience/Glimpse/Recognition vs I AM Realization (Certainty of Being)

One
of the direct and immediate response I get after reading the articles
by Rob Burbea and Rupert is that they missed one very and most important
point when talking about the Eternal Witness Experience -- The
Realization. They focus too much on the experience but overlook the
realization. Honestly I do not like to make this distinction as I see
realization also as a form of experience. However in this particular
case, it seems appropriate as it could better illustrate what I am
trying to convey. It also relates to the few occasions where you
described to me your space-like experiences of Awareness and asked
whether they correspond to the phase one insight of Eternal Witness.
While your experiences are there, I told you ‘not exactly’ even though
you told me you clearly experienced a pure sense of presence.

So
what is lacking? You do not lack the experience, you lack the
realization. You may have the blissful sensation or feeling of vast and
open spaciousness; you may experience a non-conceptual and objectless
state; you may experience the mirror like clarity but all these
experiences are not Realization. There is no ‘eureka’, no ‘aha’, no
moment of immediate and intuitive illumination that you understood
something undeniable and unshakable -- a conviction so powerful that no
one, not even Buddha can sway you from this realization because the
practitioner so clearly sees the truth of it. It is the direct and
unshakable insight of ‘You’. This is the realization that a practitioner
must have in order to realize the Zen satori. You will understand
clearly why it is so difficult for those practitioners to forgo this ‘I
AMness’ and accept the doctrine of anatta. Actually there is no forgoing
of this ‘Witness’, it is rather a deepening of insight to include the
non-dual, groundlessness and interconnectedness of our luminous nature.
Like what Rob said, "keep the experience but refine the views".

Lastly
this realization is not an end by itself, it is the beginning. If we
are truthful and not over exaggerate and get carried away by this
initial glimpse, we will realize that we do not gain liberation from
this realization; contrary we suffer more after this realization.
However it is a powerful condition that motivates a practitioner to
embark on a spiritual journey in search of true freedom. 🙂

Robert DominikI
respect for you it is ultimate truth and I can see honest conviction in
you that I too shared when I was at the level of Advaita. I just say
what you propose is seen as empty and shallow when you have the
Buddhadharma realisation.

Robert DominikThe thing is both Soh Wei Yu and John Tan
had the realisation of Self you speak of but they went deeper. Like
many seekers you got stuck on something that seems ultimate to you.
However what you say is pointless because unless you check for yourself
and honestly and humbly follow pointers
Soh and John give then your position has no value. As they have checked
both your Self and Emptiness of Buddhadharma and you only checked the
Self. Sorry but this is simply how it is and no amount of repeating
Advaita claims will change it.

Robert DominikIf
you were interested in truth and actual dialogue then you would suspend
your arrogance and spend time earnestly contemplating what Buddhadharma
says to verify for yourself. For now you are trying to convince people
who have seen the larger perspective to cling to your narrow
perspective.

Robert DominikAnurag Jain
for people who have realised both the "Self witnesses all of it" of
Advaita and Emptiness of Buddhadharma - the Self is not liberation.
There is also a master Ratnashree whos realisation of Self was confirmed
by great Hindu sages. However he then
met Buddhadharma and studied it until realising its teachings. According
to him the teachings you advocate are mundane compared to the
liberative insight of the Buddhadharma. So you can write "but the Self
is witnessing all of it" or asking "who is witnessing all of this" like
an Advaitron 9000 robot but this doesn't change anything and makes you
seem ignorant in your being so sure in promoting your view even though
you only see one side of this debate and not both sides like the people
I've mentioned.

Robert DominikIt's
completely pointless as in myself the mistake cognition of "witnessing"
and "self" can arise never again - it's impossible. And as long as you
will reject all possibility of investigating what Buddhadharma is about
but will just promote "Self" view then
it's going to be just going back and forth between me saying "Self you
speak of is illusory" and you saying "Self is witnessing that" and so on
and so on and so on

Robert DominikSo
if you are unwilling or unable verify my points without rejecting them
with your assumption then we're wasting our time here and it's better to
drop the subject alltogether and just drink tea instead.